*1 ATTORNEY OF COUNTY CAREY, STATE’S COOK v. BROWN аl. et Argued April 15, No. 79-703. June 1980 Decided *2 Court, in which J., opinion Stewart, delivered Brennan, J., JJ., joined. Stewart, Stevens, Marshall, Powell, White, dissenting J., post, filed concurring opinion, p. 471. Rehnquist, filed a post, p. 472. J., J., joined, opinion, in C. Burger, Blackmun, appel- vice for hac pro Robinson argued Ellen G. cause se, and Carey, pro Bernard her on the briefs were lant. With Biebel, Jr. Paul P. appellees. argued Arnolds the cause Burke
Edward Seng* Michael was brief P. him on the With Becker urging reversal were filed William W. curiae amici *Briefs of opinion of the Court. delivered the Justice Brennan Mr. constitutionality At issue in under the First this case and Fourteenth Amendments of a state that generally from its dwellings, exempts bars of residences or but prohibition peaceful picketing place employment “the of a involved in a dispute.”
I September On all of whom appellees, several of the of a Com- rights organization members entitled the civil Against peaceful mittee demonstra- Racism, participated in a public tion on the front of the home of Michael sidewalk alleged his failure Mayor protesting Bilandic, Chicago, then racial inte- support busing of schoolchildren to achieve gration. They with unlawful resi- charged were arrested and *3 picketing dential in violation of 21.1-2 38, § Rev. ch. Stat., Ill. provides: (1977), or residence is unlawful to before
“It about or dwelling any except or of when the residence person, dwelling place However, is used as a of business. his peacefully picketing apply person Article does not to a dwelling prohibit own or and does not residence place employment of of involved peaceful picketing a assem- holding meeting of a dispute place a labor or the subjects bly premises commonly on used to discuss general public interest.” Zumbrun, Foundation; by A. England Legal and Ronald for the New Best, Legal Foundation et al. Robert K. Robin L. Rivett for the Pacific and Eglit Goldberger Roger Baldwin David filed a brief for the Howard and Inc., urging affirmance. ACLU, as amicus curiae Foundation of by punishable a B” misdemeanor 1 A violation of “Class § 21.1-2 up imprisonment $500 than six months. See fine for not more (1977). 1005-8-3, Stat., §§ 21.1-3, 1005-9-1 Ill. Rev. ch. picketing laws other States have enacted antiresidential At least four 41-2966 to 41-2968 this statute. See Ark. Stat. Ann. similar in form to §§ (1979); (1977); Rev. Stat. 379A-1 Conn. Gen. Stat. Haw. § § 31-120 (1976). Code, law has (1976); Art. 580A Connecticut’s Md. Ann. § Appellees pleaded guilty charge to and were sentenced to periods of supervision ranging year. six months to April
In 1978, appellees commenced this lawsuit United States District Court for the District Northern Illinois, seeking a declaratory judgment Illinois resi- dential unconstitutional on its face and applied, injunction and an as defendants —various prohibiting county, city officials—-from state, enforcing the statute. Appellees attempt collaterally did not to attack their earlier state-court convictions, requested only prospective but relief. Alleging wished to renew their in residen- neighborhoods tial by from doing but were inhibited so prosecution threat criminal under residential picketing appellees statute, challenged the under the and Four- Act First teenth in light Amendments vague, and, overbroad, exception impermissible content-based picketing, on protected expression. ruling restriction Court, The District summary cross-motions for all denied relief. judgment, Scott, Brown v. Supp. F. Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed. Scott,
Brown v.
791 (1979). Discerning
prin
F. 2d
“no
cipled basis” for distinguishing the Illinois
statute from simi
lar picketing prohibition
in Police Department
invalidated
Chicago Mosley,
459 by or protecting peace of home interest the the “place special the of used character a residence that also employment.” of held that stat- Accordingly, the court applied both on face violated ute, appellees, its and as Amendment.2 We Equal Protection Fourteenth Clause probable (1980). 444 1011 We jurisdiction. noted S.U. affirm.
II in- is not the first Appeals As the Court this observed, consider the occasion to stance Court has had proscribing selectively constitutionality enactment message. placard’s peaceful picketing the basis out of Mosley, supra, arose Department Chicago Police prohibited challenge Chicago ordinance that in a labor any school other than one “involved front Equal violated held that the ordinance dispute.” We be- distinguished impermissibly Protection Clause because peaceful picketing with- picketing and all other tween labor dispute excep Appeals that the labor Because the Court of concluded statute, it invalidated tion not severable from the remainder was 318-321, Schuller, supra, еntirety. Cf. State enactment its unnecessary to consider found it 2d, The court therefore A. at 1083-1084. prohib a statute that constitutionality the First Amendment of under n. 6 Scott, 2d picketing. Brown v. F. ited all residential equal protection defective on present find the Because we barring resi all whether a statute principles, likewise do not consider we the First subject matter picketing regardless of its would violate dential Amendments. and Fourteenth provided: (i) (1968), 193-1 Chicago Municipal Code, ch. knowingly: disorderly person conduct when he “A commits any “(i) way feet of public within 150 Pickets or demonstrates on a secondary building is in session primary while the school school one-half hour after the school is in session and one-half hour before does not provided subsection concluded, that this session has been school dis- any peaceful picketing involved in a prohibit school pute. (Emphasis supplied.) . . *5 460 any showing “clearly
out the latter disruptive” was more than the 408 U. at of S., former. 100. Like the Court Appeals, we find the Illinois residential statute present constitutionally issue in indistinguishable case from the in Mosley. ordinance invalidated
There can prohibiting peaceful picket be no doubt that ing public neigh on the streets and sidewalks regulates expressive the Illinois statute conduct that borhoods, g., falls within the First preserve. Amendment’s See, e. Thornhill Alabama, Gregory v. 310 Chi (1940); U. S. 88 v. cago, 394 112 (1969); Birmingham, U. S. Shuttlesworth 111, v. 394 152 147, “Wherever the of streets and title parks may immemorially have rest, been held trust for the of public use time out of have been and, mind, used for of purposes thoughts be assembly, communicating citizens, discussing public questions.” Hague tween v. CIO, 307 (1939) J.). 515 (opinion Roberts, “‘[SJtreets, parks, public places and other similar sidewalks, historically with so associated the exercise First Amend rights ment purpose exercising access to them for rights constitutionally such cannot broadly be denied Hudgens absolutely.’” NLRB, (1976) v. S.U. Logan Plaza, Food (quoting Employees Valley 391 U. S. (1968)). can seriously disputed exempting Nor from its general prohibition “peaceful picketing place of a in a employment dispute,” involved labor the Illinois statute between lawful and unlawful discriminates conduct based On upon the content of the demonstrator’s communication.4 apparently has not The Illinois residential been Throughout litigation, however, construed the state courts. all parties interpreted statutory exception and the courts below have “peaceful picketing place employment dispute” of a in a labor involved requirement embodying subject the additional that the ongoing dispute. Department Chicago be related to the Police *6 its face, preferential expres the Act accords to the treatment sion of views on particular subject; one about information labor disputes may freely of but discussion disseminated, all other issues is of residential permissibility restricted. The picketing solely under dependent the Illinois statute is thus on the message nature of the being conveyed.5
In these critical respects, statute is identi- then, Illinois cal to the Mosley, ordinance and it the same suffers dis- government regulation constitutional infirmities. When criminates among speech-related public forum, in a activities Equal Protection legislation Clause mandates that finely jus- tailored to and the interests, serve substantial state Mosley, (1972), premised upon 408 TJ. 92 was an identical construction. S. id., 94, (statutory any 2 exemption peaceful picketing See at of n. for “the dispute” labor of a applies school involved in a labor to dispute). school involved in such a 5 creating exception The District Court read the labor in this statute separate “places employment” and all two classifications: one between of “residences,” employment involved “places other and a second between dispute” “places employment in a labor and not involved in a labor permissible dispute.” court held was a The the first classification although regulation picketing. And content-neutral of the location of subject recognizing that the second distinction be based on well demonstration, supra, appellees 4, matter of the n. the court held that see “a standing challenge seeking picket lacked it because were place employment,” from a deter and thus would not have benefitted Brown mination that v. the second classification was unconstitutional. Scott, Supp. (1978). 518, 462 F. 534-535 adopt Appeals, reversing refused Court, Court of the District interpretation Rather, “place it read the lower court’s of the statute. employment” exception dwellings” to divide and into but two “residences categories (i. e., employ- places at which all is lawful —those (*. e., disputes) ment involved and at which it is unlawful those Scott, dwellings). 2d, other Brown v. at 793- all residences 602 F. accept Appeals. Appellees 794. construction of the Court of We permission do so. sought at a residence and were denied They clearly standing statutory have to attack the on which classification premised. Indeed, appellant challenge the Court that denial was does not he Appeals’ interpretation Arg. 13, statute, Tr. of Oral content-based, id., this restriction is concedes that at 21.
462 any
tifications offered for distinctions care- it drаws must be Police Department fully Chicago Mosley, scrutinized. v. United O’Brien, States v. S., 98-99, 101; U. see 391 U. S. Rhodes, Williams (1968); 376-377 v. 30-31 (1968); Dunn Blumstein, (1972); S. 342-343 U. San Antonio Independent Rodriguez, School Dist. Mosley:
1, 34, n. explained “Chicago may As we not vindicate disruption its interest in preventing by whole- sale exclusion of picketing preferred subject. on all but one Given Chicago what tolerates from labor picketing, the excesses of some nonlabor may not be controlled broad *7 ordinance prohibiting peaceful both picketing. violent and Such 'can be by narrowly excesses controlled drawn statutes/ New York, Saia 334 U. S., at on abuses focusing and dealing evenhandedly with picketing regardless subject matter.” S.,U. at 101-102. Yet guise under the here, of preserving residential flatly prohibited Illinois has privacy, all nonlabor picketing though permits even it equally likely to intrude on tranquility the home. it is the
Moreover, speech content of the that determines whether it is within or without statute’s prohibition.6 blunt in Mosley we What said equal present has force in the case: problem “The central Chicago’s with is that ordinance it permissible describes picketing in subject terms its matter. Peaceful on subject of a school’s labor-management dispute is but all other permitted, peaceful picketing prohibited. operative distinc- tion is message on picket sign. Any . . restriction . expressive on activity because of its com- content would pletely the 'profound undercut national to commitment is, course, It no answer to assert that the Illinois statute does not speaker’s discriminate on the basis of the viewpoint, only but on the basis subject message. matter of his hostility “The First Amendment’s regulation content-based extends not particular to restrictions on viewpoints, prohibition public but also topic.” discussion of an entire Consolidated Edison Public Comm’n, post, Co. v. Service at 537. principle public on unin debate issues should be New York Times
hibited, robust, wide-open.’ and v. Co. Sullivan, 270. 254], [376
“Necessarily, Equal Clause, under the Protection then, not to mention government Amendment First itself, may grant not use of forum people whose views acceptable, finds deny wishing but use to those express less or favored more And it controversial views. may not select which discussing issues are worth or debat public ing in ‘equality There facilities. is an status in the field of ideas,’ government and must afford all points of equal opportunity view an to be Once heard. opened up assembly forum is speaking by or some groups, government may prohibit not others assem bling speaking say. on the basis intend to what Selective from a not public may forum based exclusions alone, justified content reference Id., to content (citations alone.” footnote at 95-96 omitted)
7Mosley pronouncement was neither the first Court’s nor its last the First regula and Fourteenth Amendments forbid discrimination tion of expression expression. *8 on the basis of the content that See of Louisiana, (1965) Cox v. 536, (Black, J., concurring): 379 U. S. 581 “Standing, patrolling, marching conduct, or back and forth on streets speech, regulated by and as prohibited. specifically conduct can be But permitting publication views, for the labor of union Louisiana is attempting pick among willing to and choose the views it is to have dis trying by cussed on its It prescribe streets. thus is to law what matters public people may interest whom to allows assemble its streets and may not discuss. This censorship seems to me to be ain most odious form, unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. And deny appellant group to this and his use of the streets because their against discrimination, allowing groups views racial while use other to the opinions subjects, think, streets to voice on other I amounts, also to by Equal invidious discrimination forbidden the Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” City Jacksonville, 209, 205, (1975); See also Erznoznik v. 422 U. S.
Hudgens NLRB, v. 424 U. S. (1976); Madison Joint School
III Appellant distinguish- nonetheless contends that this case is Mosley. argues able from He that the interests here state especially particularly by well served compelling and non- statute that differential treatment labor and accords picketing. explore interests, in turn We each these manner in which and the are said to be furthered statute.
A explains Chicago ordinance Appellant whereas the concededly a disruption of sought prevent schools, the id., governmental concern, see “legitimate” “substantial” and privacy to ensure 99, 100, the Illinois statute was enacted n in appellant paramount the which views as right in home, he contends reason, our For this constitutional scheme.8 in held invalid same content-based distinctions Mosley present in case. upheld context whether the consider unnecessary, however, find it
We in privacy outranks its interest interest in residential State’s For even hierarchy of societal values. quiet schools Comm’n, Employment 429 U. District 8 v. Wisconsin Relations S. No. Bellotti, (1976); National Bank Boston 175-176 First post, Comm’n, (1978); Edison Co. Public Service 784-785 Consolidated at 536-538. importance to the interest maintain State attaches finding Legislature’s ing privacy Illinois is reflected residential accompanying the residential statute: society that men in a free have Legislature
“The finds and declares community enjoyment homes; stability right quiet that the of their right family and and life cannot maintained unless respected encourаged; security peace in and the home are sense home, inspiring it, disrupts picketing, just the that residential however cause life; inappropriate family and communal assembly jealously rights speech society, guarded of free where the our rights For always respect of others. been associated with have *9 be Legislature this Article to neces- reasons the finds declares these sary.” (1977). Stat., ch. IE. Rev. §21.1-1
465 legitimate the most goal may not advanced a constitu- tionally impermissible though might manner. And we agree that certain state interests be so compelling that where no adequate alternatives exist a content-based distinction— narrowly if permissible drawn —would be way furthering those objectives, States, Schenck United cf. 249 v. U. S. this is (1919), not such a case. generalized
First, classification which the statute draws suggests that Illinois itself has determined residential privacy is not a objective: transcendent broadly per- While peaceful mitting all picketing notwithstanding labor dis- turbances would undoubtedly engender, the makes no attempt distinguish among various sorts of nonlabor on picketing basis of the harms they inflict would on the interest) privacy apparent The overinclusiveness and under- inclusiveness of the statute’s restriction would seem largely appellant’s undermine non- prohibition claim that of all labоr picketing can be justified reference to State’s in maintaining tranquility.9 interest domestic More for fundamentally, the exclusion labor can- upheld not privacy as means of residential protecting simple nothing for the reason that the content-based labor- on any bearing privacy. nonlabor distinction has whatsoever Appellant point can inherent in the nothing nature disrup- peaceful any that would make it less privacy tive of than on peaceful issues Standing alone, broader social concern. then, State’s promoting of the home asserted interest sufficient save statute. Kalven, Concept Louisiana, Cox Cf. Public Forum: v. Young Theatres, (quoted Inc., American Mini
Sup. Ct. v. Rev. J.)): 50, 67, (1976) Stevens, groups (opinion n. 27 “If some prohibition parades pickets, for exempted from a the rationale Chicago Department regulation fatally impeached.” Police See also Village Schaumburg Mosley, S., 100; Better 408 U. Citizens Environment, 444 U. S. 638-639 *10 466
B by appellant important objective second advanced The providing interest support the State’s statute is that fed- maintains special protection protests. for labor He 10 concern unusual long eral has exhibited an and state11 law this solicitude that for such and he contends activities, for labor exemption may by narrowly be furthered drawn picketing. forth- difficulty argument that
The with this central deserving is more rightly presupposes that labor over public protests protection Amendment than First social, important economic, particularly other issues, demon- appellees wish to subjects which these political about T. reject proposition. Cf. Emerson, strate. We that (suggesting (1970) 444-449' Expression System of Freedom of than pine expression akin picketing is more nonlabor that restric- subject fewer should picketing and thus be basic con- of . . . “an exercise tions). picketing, Public-issue form,” and classic pristine in their most rights stitutional 10 Alabama, seq,; Thornhill v. 310 et generally C. See 29 U. S. § 141 (1941). Appellant does Swing, 321 (1940); AFL v. 312 U. S. U. 88S. pre Act Labor Relations suggest the National go so far as to picketing of resi prohibiting the empts enacting a law the State from argument has dubious merit. disputes. an in labor Such dences involved Comm’n, 427 U. Employment Relations S. Machinists v. Wisconsin See 136, and n. (1977), provides: Stat., ch. Ill. Rev. See § 2a any granted court injunction restraining order or shall “No dispute concern- involving growing of a any or out ... case this State restraining any per- enjoining employment, or ing terms or conditions peaceably and without singly concert, . . . persons, either or in or son street, thoroughfare or any public or being upon intimidation threats or information, communicating or tо obtaining or highway purpose for any person per- persuade or threats or intimidation peaceably and without peaceably and working, employ or to or to to abstain from to work or sons any dis- employ party to a labor cease to threats or intimidation without so others to do.” advise, persuade pute, recommend, or to Edwards Carolina, v. South (1963), has always rested highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values: “The maintenance of the opportunity political free government discussion to the may end responsive will to the of the people changes be obtained by lawful means, opportunity essential to the *11 security of the is a Republic, principle fundamental of our system.” constitutional Stromberg California, (1931). 359, 369 generally See Free Meiklejohn, Speech A. and Its Relation to Self-Government While the motivation in protecting State’s the First rights Amendment employees disputes involved labor that is commendable, factor, without justify picketing the labor cannot more, exemption.
C Appellant’s justi- final the contention is that can be preceding objectives. fied some combination This the argument fashioned on In elemen- is two different its levels. formulation, posits it distinction between simply tal that to further- picketing uniquely labor nonlabor suited legislativе ing judgment privacy the residential should that com- preserved possible the also greatest to extent without special In promising protection owing picketing. the to labor as a short, attempt the statute is viewed reasonable to accom- competing rights enjoy modate the of the homeowner to his employee disputes.12 labor and the to demonstrate over dispute labor exemption We note that statute’s is overbroad respect, protects rights picket employee this it employer, permits parties the residence of his but also third employer employee, dispute both his even when there is no between appellant’s explained argument: those individuals. As counsel at oral dispute part employee could exist even if the wasn’t “[T]he you dispute. example, For if employs have condominium non-union that janitors janitor and the non-union perfectly happy there, con to be ceivably janitors engage union could picketing, very like a tradi much tional labor law cane.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 14. validity hinges on the justify the statute attempt
But concluded that already and we have of these of both goals, all speech form of over one desire to favor latter —the illegitimate. others —is appellant’s formulation of complеx and more
The second carefully drafted at- aas characterizes the statute position impinge which would picketing prohibit tempt permitting that privacy while residential exception In essence, appellant asserts would not. interest the State’s does not contravene for labor char- unique because of the tranquility preserving By employment.” “place is a of a residence that acter converting dwell- into home and “inviting” worker his resi- argument goes, place employment, ing into a In other privacy. his entitlement to total dent has diluted free right his to be words, he has “waived” rela- employment arising out of the respect disputes with *12 excep- narrow labor thereby justifying the statute’s tionship, locations.13 tion those by pressed appel justification not An alternative for the statute —one only home, inso protect privacy in the but is intended to
lant —is that it forms objective accomplished prohibiting those can be without far as that neighborhoods and peculiarly appropriate to speech of that are residential effectively arising elsewhere. out cannot exercised Since only neighborhoods be carried out occurring in can disputes of continue, permitted under neighborhoods, argument would it is in those picketing, alternative while for which suitable the statute other forms generally exist, will are barred. forums might assuming distinction in some cases be that a content-based Even State, grounds, Schneider v.
permissible on these but see (“one liberty (1939) expression is not to have exercise his plea appropriate places abridged that exercised in some on it a is seri- place”), this is such case because the Illinois statute other ously respect. singles special protection It underinclusive in this out for only many one of the sorts of which must be carried out resi- neighborhoods arising dential or not at all. Protests out of landlord-tenant preservation just relationships, zoning disputes, and historic issues are some The flaw in argument proves it too that little. Numerous types peaceful picketing other labor picket- than ing would negligible have but a impact privacy on interests,14 and numerous other actions might of a homeowner constitute “nonresidential” uses his property would and thus serve to right vitiate the to residential privacy. For example, resident who prominently decorates his front windows and yard posters with promoting the qualifications of one candi- for political date might office be said to counter- “invite” a demonstration from supporters opposing of an candidate. a Similarly, cоunty chairman who uses home with his to meet his district captains and to controversial issue discuss some might well expect that those who are deeply concerned about the decision the ultimately chairman will reach would want to make their views known demonstrating his home outside during meeting. And, particular regard with the facts of the instant it borders on case, suggest the frivolous to that a resident repairman who invites into his home to fix his television has his right privacy set “waived” respect with dispute repairman to a between the local union,15 but official voluntarily who has public chosen to enter the arena has not likewise right “waived” his with respect challenge significant his views issues policy.16 social economic many neigh demonstrations bear direct relation to residential generally Comment,
borhoods. See Doorstep, Picketers at the 9 Harv. Rights Indeed, 101-102, Civ. Lib. L. Rev. appellees - Civ. they engage themselves assert want to in residential because communicating effective means have concern their *13 busing neighborhood to about the issue of the desired audience. Yet groups Illinois statute bars all of these in residential areas wishing dispute while to permitted those at the site of a labor do so. 14 supra, 461-462. See at 15 supra. 12, See n. 16 Welch, Inc., (1974). 418 Cf. Gertz v. Robert U. S. 323 470
IV
We therefore conclude
appellant has
success
fully distinguished Mosley.
We are not
be understood to
imply, however, that
beyond
the reach
of uniform
nondiscriminatory
regulation.
right
For the
g.,
Louisiana,
communicate is not
Cox
379
E.
limitless.
v.
(1965);
Louisiana,
U. S.
554-555
Cox
379
U.
v.
S.
(1965).1
563-564
7
peaceful picketing
prohibited
Even
may be
when it interferes
operation
governmental
with the
of vital
ibid,
facilities,
g.,
e.
see,
(picketing
parading prohibited
or
near
Florida,
courthouses); Adderley
(1966) (dem
v.
Moreover,
have often declared
state munici
“[a]
pality may protect
privacy by enacting
individual
reasonable
time, place,
regulations
and manner
applicable
speech
to all
irrespective
City
Jacksonville,
content.” Erznoznik v.
422
209 (1975) (emphasis supplied).
g.,
See, e.
Cox
Hampshire,
v. New
312
(1941);
U.
569
v.
S.
Kovacs
Cooper,
471 wherein can escape hurly-burly the of outside the busi and political ness public buildings for world, and other require peace quiet carry and out their such as functions, courts, libraries, schools, hospitals.” Gregory Chicago, and v. 394 U. S. (1969) 118 J., concurring). (Black,
Preserving sanctity the of the one home, the retreat men and repair women can escape from the tribula- tions daily of their surely important is value. pursuits, Our decisions reflect no of right lack the of an solicitude individual “to privacy be let alone” in of “some- home, the the times the last of citadel the sick.” tired, weary, the Id., 125 (Black, Stanley at v. J., concurring). generally See Georgia, (1969); 394 557 Rowan United Post v. States Dept., 397 FCC S. 728 Founda- (1970); U. v. Office Pacifica tion, York, 438 S. Payton New 445 (1978); v. U. S. 573 (1980). The protecting State’s well-being, interest tranquility, certainly highest of home “ society. order in a free and question, civilized ‘The crucial is whether however, Illinois’ that ob- advances [the statute] in manner jective Equal consistent with the command Reed, Protection Clause.’ Reed 404 U. [(1971)].” v. [71], Police Department Chicago Mosley, S.,U. 99’. And because the statute among pickets discriminates based on subject matter of must their answer expression, “No.” judgment
The Appeals Court of Affirmed Stewart, Mr. Justice concurring. opinion of the Court the Court’s case, as did
opinion Chicago Police Department Mosley, S.U. Equal invokes the Protection Clause the Fourteenth actually the basis Amendment as of decision. But was what Mosley, at stake and is at meaning stake basic here, is the protection constitutional speech: free a municipality may constitutionally impose “[W]hile time, regulations reasonable and manner place, Amendment for First of its streets and use sidewalks *15 such use forbid of may altogether even purposes, may not do municipality what a of its some facilities; is t-o dis- Fourteenth Amendments the First and under on basis of expression the of the regulation criminate NLRB, Hudgens of expression.” that the content omitted.) (Citations 520. U. S. I understanding join opinion that upon It this the is of the Court. judgment Justice with whom The Chief Rehnquist,
Mr. Justice dissenting. Justice Blackmun join, and Mr.
I decision address the Court’s merits the constitutional I although seriously question appellees’ also the stand- first, invalidity ing grounds to assert the on which the Court apparently opinion relies.1 One who reads the of the probably impression is with the Illinois has enacted left that “All residential reads: picketing, n prohibited.” except for labor is 'Such an picketing, standing premises finding appellees that the have to 1 The Court its challenge appellant’s the part statute at on the least basis argument persisting in “concessions” at oral that the State not its was challenge appellees’ standing ante, to this Court. n. See 5. weight But said that attach to we have are loath to conclusive the “[w]e relatively responses equally question spontaneous spontaneous counsel to Lodge ing during argument.” oral Moose No. from the Court Moreover, Irvis, appellant while have challenge standing to had appellees’ argue been chosen statute, appellant certainly equal protection did not under the con denied argue appellees standing desiring had' cede that other individuals might appellees under circumstances dissimilar denied equal fact, quite explicitly protection under In the statute. counsel only constitutionality pro consider stated that the Court should hibiting appellees’ urge “I First conduct: would that the . . . Amend question applied plaintiffs, be as ment to the conduct that actually engaged plaintiffs Arg. . And in. . .” Tr. Oral 17. standing question implicated by opinion. is the the Court’s See infra, at 486-489.
impression entirely understandable; indeed, it is created throughout phrasing opinion. Court’s own exempting Court asserts that “in its Illinois, general prohibition only 'peaceful of a place employ- in a labor . . dispute,’ ment involved . between discriminates upon lawful and unlawful conduct based .. . content. .” . . Ante, added.) at 460. (Emphasis It states that “informa- disputes may freely disseminated, tion but about Ante, discussion all other issues is at 461. restricted.” permissibility The Court finds that the of residential dependent “solely in Illinois is message the nature conveyed.” (Emphasis added.) again Ibid. And being has flatly prohibited Court states that “Illinois all nonlabor *16 picketing” “broadly permi[t] while the statute said to is all peaceful Ante, labor picketing.” at 465.
Dissenting opinions likely are more quarrel than not to exposition my with the Court’s of the but initial law, quarrel accuracy is paraphrasing with the of the Court’s and selective from Illinois quotation complete language statute. The of the set accurately out the text the Court’s statute, legislative quite reveals a scheme opinion, different that described the Court its paraphrasing narrative enactment.2 provides
The statute residential is prohib- picketing goes exempt categories on four ited, but of residences from First, general “place if the is used as this ban. residence simplistic opin construction of reflected in the Court’s apparently justified by supposed appellant’s also ion is “concessions” of Ante, argument. Appellant, however, counsel at oral at n. has 5. regulates solely by suggested picketing permitting never the statute labor, nonlabor, through picketing. but not issues to be aired residential differentiation, appellant admitting the use of content While some as throughout argument “place” regulation; serts his the statute is a purposes it allows at homes used for nonresidential but not at e.'g,, exclusively purposes. ques See, those homes used presented for in the Juris. Statement 4. tion review peaceful picketing business” all is Second, allowed. if the is being meeting assembly residence used “hol[d] premises commonly used subjects general public to discuss all peaceful picketing interest” is allowed. if the resi- Third, dence is also a “place used as of employment” which is in- volved in a labor labor-related dispute, picketing is allowed. Finally, provides the statute that a resident is entitled to picket his own Thus it is clear home. that information about labor disputes may “freely not be disseminated” since labor category restricted to a narrow residences. And “flatly Illinois has prohibited not all picketing” nonlabor since it nonlabor at place allows residences used as a business, public residences used meeting places, an individual’s own residence.
Only through mischaracterization of the Illinois stat- ute attempt Court fit this case into Mosley rule prohibiting regulation on the basis of “content alone.” (Emphasis Police added.) Department Chicago Mosley, For in Mosley, the sole determinant of an right picket individual’s near a school was con- speech. tent of the As the today aptly such observes, a regulation exacting warrants In scrutiny. contrast, principal a person’s determinant of right a residence Illinois as the Court content, suggests, .but rather sought character the residence picketed. to be Content *17 only relevant in one of categories the by established the legislature.
The appropriate analysis cases to the therefore are those establishing the on a authority limits State’s to impose time, place, and manner restrictions speech activities. Under taking even rubric, into account the limited content dis- by tinction made Illinois readily has statute, satisfied its obligation constitutional draft statutes conformity with equal protection First and principles. Amendment In fact, very today statute which the Court cavalierly invalidates by been hailed has commentators “an excellent model” of legislation a balance achieving among rights pri- delicate free vacy, equal and expression, protection. Kamin, See Picketing Residential and the First U. Amendment, Nw. (1966); Rev. Chi. Rev. Comment, L. L. legislators will un- state the Nation doubtedly greet today’s nothing decision than ex- with less asperation and befuddlement. after time, Time States they have been assured may properly promote residential that expression even free though must be reduced. To be our adopted laundry decisions have virtual sure, a list of “Don’ts” must process. Heading that be adhered to in the up that list course the rule legislatures must curtail free expression through “least restrictive means” con- accomplishment sistent with their and purpose, must avoid which are vague capable standards either or discretionary application. But somewhere, says the Court (with reassuring these cases pat legisla- on the head to the gold there is the tures), pot constitutional end at the of litigation. rainbow where Illinois has drafted
Here, avoiding such statute, outright ban avoiding on all residential picketing, reliance on any vague discretionary standards, permitting cate- permissible gories activity at residences where has State determined the resident’s own actions have substantially his reduced interest the Court privacy, response confronts the State with the “Catch-22” categories less restrictive are constitutionally infirm under principles equal protection. approach Under the Court’s the State would fare today, better more adopting restrictive judicial I thought incentive means, had this Court would hesitate to afford. Either or uniform that, restrictions will invalid under the First found Amendment and categorical found exceptions Equal invalid under Protection Clause, with result speech only speech will be entitled protection. This can mean hymns that the of praise opinions in prior celebrating carefully drawn statutes are no *18 more than and in fact is sympathetic clucking, State damned if it if does and damned it doesn’t. by
Equally methodology troublesome is the which these questions of constitutional law been reached. have difficult figuratively today country Court walked mile to find potential application of unconstitutional statute, this primarily potential total nullification this statute it is a is in rests. Just because statute which duty issue does not relieve this Court of its decide controversy presented by concrete As case. discussed be- I think it low, quite prohibit clear that the statute does not the appellees engaging in this from action conduct which proteсted must be under the Amendment, First state interests would not aby employing be satisfied statute less means, restrictive facially by the statute is not overbroad prohibiting conduct which clearly permitted must be under appellees First have not Amendment, themselves been protection denied equal because do not seek to picket under indistinguishable circumstances which are the circumstances where picketing Only spec- is allowed. by might ulating that there individual or group will be denied equal protection the statute can the in- Court it. speculation validate This permitted is not indulge nullifying when the acts legislative branch.
I The Illinois issue simply does not contravene the First Amendment.
A Repeatedly, upheld this Court has state authority to restrict the time, and manner place, if speech, regulations those “protect a substantial governmental interest unrelated suppression expression” of free narrowly and are tailored, limiting restrictions reasonably to those necessary pro- government tect the substantial Glines, interest. Brown
477 Tillage Schaumburg 444 (1980); 354 348, v. Citizens Environment, a Better 444 This U. S. 620 stand- for permissible ard in measuring regulation, state often echoed Court’s opinions, readily satisfied in this case. protect The interest which here is resi- the State seeks to dential privacy, clearly legislature’s demonstrated Ante, statement of purpose. at 8. When a residence 464, n. is used exclusively for recog- residential the State purposes, exception nizes no in picketing. to the ban on As this case, has not been fell Mayor asserted that Bilandic’s home into any category solely other than residence used for residen- purposes. appellees tial nevertheless assert their in publicizing opinions interest their school the issue of integration outweigh protect- asserted State’s interest ing privacy. residential simply support
Our cases do such a not construction of the First In Kovacs v. Cooper, Amendment. 336 U. S. the state (1949), preventing interest interference with the “social in which [city engaged activities or the residents] quiet enjoy” prohibition would like to warranted the of sound trucks on In residential Rowan v. United streets. States Dept., Post (1970), this Court Office held that right every person ‘to be let alone’ must “[t]he placed in right with scales of others to communicate.” “very The Court recognized right basic to be free from sounds, sights, tangible matter do not in the we want” home. Ibid. justify These interests were sufficient ability absolutely resident’s preclude delivery of unwanted Similarly, mail his address. in FCC Founda- v. Pacifica tion, 748 (1978), U. S the Court found an of- absolutely fensive broadcast could be banned from the air- because waves it “confrоnts the citizen, public, but also in the of the home, where the individual’s plainly to be left alone right outweighs the Amendment First of an intruder.” rights ap- Under these authorities, pellees have no fundamental right First Amendment in front of a residence.
B Nor can it be said that fully the state interest could be protected by a less restrictive An absolute ban on statute. residences solely used purposes residential permissibly furthers the state protecting interest privacy. The certainly State could pres conclude that ence of even a solitary picket *20 in front of a residence is an intolerable intrusion on privacy. today The Court suggests that some would have but a activities “negligible impact interests,” Illi intimating that satisfy nois could through its interests more limited restric tions on such picketing, the hours and regulating numbers of pickets. Ante, I at 469. But nothing find in the cases this Court to suggest may that State con permissibly not clude that even one camped individual in front of the home unacceptable. It is the legis State, Court, not this which to prohibit lates evils which its citizens find unescapable, sub ject only to the limitations of the United States Constitution. Unlike sound just not the distraction of the noise trucks, which is in very presence issue—it is the unwelcome visitor at the home. As a Wisconsin court described Wau v. King, watosa 49 Wis. 2d 2d 398, 411-412, N. W. (1971): “To those inside . . . the home becomes less something than a when and home while . . . contin- ue . . pressures may [s]. . tensions and [The] physical, not but psychological, they are for that not, reason, less inimical to family truly privacy and domestic tranquility.” noisy
Whether or silent, alone or accompanied by others, whether on the streets or on the I sidewalk, think that there are few of us that would feel knowing comfortable
stranger lurks prohibition outside our home. The State’s justify regulations previ- this conduct is even easier than ously upheld by mailings this Court and broadcasts limiting Pacifica, In as in Rowan, into home. the resident by could annoyance throwing least have short-circuited the away turning the mail or off the Even alterna- radio. redress, tive was held not sufficient however, preclude legislative authorities from initial prohibiting the intrusion. Where, as has no recourse of what- here, escape resident soever, quite justifiably pro- the State conclude that by tection afforded a statute such as this more seems even necessary.
C Thus the appellees cannot secure invalidation statute by urging engage seek to expression must be protected or by the First demonstrat- Amendment ing that a statute less restrictive satisfy would the state On per- interest. occasion this has, course, of a though mitted invalidation statute even the plaintiff’s conduct was prоtected if the clearly “sweeps prohibitions within *21 its not be punished what under the First . . Grayned City . Rockford, 408 Amendmen[t].” 104, S. 114-115
But this statute satisfies challenge. even the overbreadth arguable It a when voluntarily resident has used his home for nonresidential in a way uses which reduces the resident’s person and the home interest, seeking picket the no has effectively airing grievance alternative forum for the because it relates to this nonresidential use some home, form of residential might protected be under the picketing First Amendment. The courts which have found general on prohibitions permissible residential under the First have considered question Amendment more dif ficult under such circumstances. For in Walinsky example, 2d Kennedy, 94 Misc. 404 Y. 121, N. 2d 491 (1977), S. but con- all residential enjoined court York New cluded if raised question [resi- would more difficult
“[a] no was thus and there in his home office were dent’s] could be confronted he forum wherein other suitable Id., 132, at be heard.” could viewpoints picket’s n. 15. Y. at 2d, n. 404 N. Rejuve- Organization to Neighborhood in Hibbs v.
Similarly, 2d 623- A. 578, 580, Tenant Housing, nate Pa. be picketed a could found that slumlord (1969), the court effectively his operated only because he his but home, other alternative situs and no out of his residence business has intimated dispute. This Court to air the was available Layers, 301 in in Senn v. Tile a concern dicta similar statute right of under state (1937). There the laborers his busi- employer operated of an who the residence say was and the Court went upheld, ness his home statutory special without might, embers of union that “[m] of a labor by a make known the facts state, authorization guaranteed by Federal speech for freedom dispute, Id., at Constitution.” 478. say
I means without more that the State would no permit such such cir- picketing, would have but would, found, present cumstances as the courts have for a greatest potential complaint overbreadth. The State present any case forestalled such how- challenge, has by exempting such groups the ban on residential ever, picketing. required by Whether the Constitution or such not, exemptions the concern of this Court if violate upheld the Constitution. This fact enforcement of similar residential permitting Senn v. Layers, supra. Tile a legitimate Since State has interest *22 speech activity in protecting providing particular, no reasonably forum where other is available, resi- excluding purposes dences used for nonresidential general the prohibition picketing entirely is rational legislative policy, by even if not mandated First Amend- the ment. Thus no challenge overbreadth succeed here. should
II though Even prohibit statute does not conduct which is protectеd, statute must also survive the hurdle of Protection Equal Clause Fourteenth Amendment. By choosing a excluding approach less-restrictive-means pickets at residences purposes used for nonresidential from the general concludes has vio- prohibition, Court the State protection. I equal lated result can be do not think this appellees equal sustained because the have denied not been protection and that is question prop- this Court erly review.
A Department Chicago Police S. 92 Mosley, by states which (1972), equal protection require- standard ments the First Amendment context measured. must that case identified question” the “crucial as “whether there is an appropriate governmental interest suit- ably by furthered appellees’ differential treatment” of the Id., picketing. city at 95. The interest asserted was prevention disruption Thus the stat- schools. satisfy ute, Mosley, prohibited should have all reasonably categorized which could disruptive. Yet the permitted ordinance labor picketing prohibiting picket- while ing to race discrimination all relating (and other nonlabor though even both forms of were topics), equally disruptive. question
Thus the whether the has substantial State interest in differentiating ap- between the which pellees seek to conduct permitted and the picketing which protection under the statute. For equal not require does “things are different in fact ... be treated in law *23 482 Tigner (cid:127)Texas, though they same.”
as were the U. S. (1940). Appellees picket a residence to voice seek integration. their views on school has been no show- There ing that pur- the resident has used his home for nonresidentia! may no poses, appellees other forum is available where publicize dispute.3 pickets their All fall cate- within this who matter gory, expression may no what the content of be, their prohibited are integration, residential picketing. School public housing, recognition Red of disputes, China are respect. treated alike in this has dif- State ferentiated place when the residence been used as a has a business, place public place for or a meetings, employ- ment, occupied by or is In himself. each these categories, has State determined that the resident has waived some privacy through voluntary measure of of his use purposes. home for these clearly
Our cases support authority design State’s permissibility relation to the use particular building is put. Grayned City As stated in Rockford, 408 S.,U. at 116: “The nature of a 'the place, pattern of its normal activities, dictate the kinds of regula- of time, tions place, manner that are reasonable.’ . . . The crucial question is expression whether the manner of basically incompatible with the normal activity particular of a place particular at a time.” The all fact that areas could be classified as school grounds, would mean all however, grounds school subject had to the same restrictions. As the Court in Grayned noted: “Different considerations, apply in course, different circumstances. For re- example, Mayor If it is the appellees reach, they seek to have not shown they city cannot do so at neighborhoods they hall. If it is the seek to reach, they have not neighborhood shown that cannot do so in parks. I speech think it is now clear that when interests are countered governmental other interests, availability substantial another highly forum is a determining relevant factor in appropriate balance. Procunier, See Pell v. 823-824
strictions appropriate to a high during school single-building class would inappropriate hours many open areas on Id., college campus. . .” just surely n. And . 45. the State differentiate between residences used exclu- sively residential purposes and those which not. It *24 far from arbitrary nonsensical or for a legislature to conclude that interests are reduced when the residence is used for thеse In purposes. other case, another First Amendment Slaton, Paris Adult I Theatre (1973), 413 U. we stated: “From legis- the of beginning societies, civilized lators judges have on unprovable acted various assump- tions. Such assumptions regula- much lawful underlie state tion of commercial and business affairs.”
Despite the in treating state interest residences which used nonresidential purposes differently from residences which are the finds not, Court that are im- categories the proper because there is an regulation element of content statutory the scheme. clearly While content is the prin- not cipal of statutory focus the since is categories, content relevant the subcategory one “places employment,” of of the content restriction quite clearly is related to a legitimate purpose. state When an employee individual hires an per- form services in his home, it would not seem reasonable to conclude greatly resident had so compromised his residential status permit so as to picketing any subject. on The State quite properly decide that balance is better struck the rule embodied in recognizes this statute which a more limited waiver of privacy by allowing only interests picketing relating any labor dispute involving the resident employer as which has arisen out the resident’s choice his place residence as a using employment. closely
Content regulation, when related a permissible clearly state is permitted. purpose, Surely the Court would prohibit city from preventing an individual from inter- orderly city rupting council public discussion of housing to on orate the vices or power. virtues nuclear Yet this is topics restriction of regulation. accurately, More content to the forum. In the forum appropriate case, those employment— place confined used is a one-—residences as clearly topic. forum is picketing relevant Louisiana, This Cox v. supported by differentiation prohibition a state upheld S. 559 There picketing government which was building front as a used courthouse if the content of the could judiciary. presumed to demonstrate an intent to influence the Cox In of the nature of state interest in- then, because both as well the use voked, the content building were considered determinative. The Court noted if a had an in- mayor office in the courthouse and topic mayor, were on a dividuals relevant than permissi- rather then would judiciary, speech Thus ble. use and or as Mr. stated content, Justice Stevens *25 the plurality Young Theatres, Inc., in v. American Mini 427 U. 50S. “content and context” are (1976), important Cox, As in determinants. need not treat residences State which used for different in purposes the same and fashion, reasonably when related to the state distinctions in purpose, are permissible. content See also FCC Founda- v. Pacifica tion, 438 (1978); City Jacksonville, U. S. 726 Erznoznik v. 422 U. Young Theatres, S. 205 (1975); Mini American supra. therefore, question, not whether is some there dif-
ferentiation on the basis but content, ap- whether the prohibited pellees’ conduct can be to said share the same characteristics of the conduct which permitted. The Court page devotes less than one to what purports equal to an protection analysis of this question. determinative In fact, only one sentence relates the differences between the lit- igants permitted case the picketing: “And, particular regard with facts the of the instant case, it borders on the suggest frivolous to resi-
dent home to fix his repairman who invites a into his privacy with re- right television set has ‘waived’ his local spect dispute repairman to a and the between voluntarily chosen the official who has union, but enter his public arena has not likewise ‘waived’ right to a to his views respect challenge with policy.” issues of and economic significant social Ante, 469. at it is unclear would be con- whether the Illinois statute
First, permit strued to described in type of labor em- example dispute Court’s is not between the where the ployer employee.4 an official has Second, the fact that bearing chosen to public ques- enter the arena has no on the tion of he of rele- only question how uses his residence —the vance'to Legislature. just the Illinois the State Further, in Cox an interest preventing picketing might had tend to improperly judicial process, influence the the State certainly equal preventing pick- has an interest eting of their officials where result be influence might through family. not the harassment the official’s This is type society influence that a democratic has tradition- ally high held as a the Bill part Rights. Finally, least the case of the home in is the repairman, fact situs of the is not. publicized Mayor’s while the home dispute, The appellees picket dispute; do not seek to situs of the they do seek to who has the home of individual used his residence for relevant purposes nonresidential to that any dispute; unavailability have not established the *26 forum. alternative These are the characteristics of residen- 4 given many opportunity, might If the Illinois courts determine that “employees” repairmen Further, are not under the it is also statute. possible by disputes that the state courts would limit the covered the ex ception employee. impor those between to the resident and his More questions tantly, these are with which this court should not be .concerned opportunity until the state courts have had an to them. See address infra, at 488. picketing
tial which the has appellees State allowed. The thereby failed to picket have establish that to seek under rationally circumstances indistinguishable circum- permitted stances under which the State picketing. They has equal protection. have therefore not been denied B The appellees Court makes little effort to establish that the picket seek to under indistinguish- circumstances are able from the picketing permitted under In- the statute. stead, it places equal protection the fulcrum of its argument on the might fact there well other of a be actions home- owner which would constitute a “nonresidential” use his warranting property, statutory exceptions. additional While I am not persuaded that Court has example identified an of another picket who should be permitted picket likewise justification under the by forwarded State,5 the flaws 5The Court examples picketing identifies several which the State allegedly protec would allow equal have to in order to avoid a successful tion attack. The Court ground indicates there is differen no tiating permitted relating between the picketing which is and disputes, zoning disputes, preservation landlord-tenant and historic issues. Ante, 468-469, 13. first examples particularly n. these seems inappropriate since disputes in relation to landlord-tenant would likely permissible just most be under the The stat as written. by exempts picketing residence, ute an individual at his so it would cer tainly appear dwelling a tenant could front of his own (which happens dispute). op also the situs of If the landlord home, erates his business out his would also be able to the tenants picket there under the statute. Thus there is no to believe that reason opportunities substantially of tenants been limited have statutory classifications, appear and fact at least would employees disputes. Zoning broad as those afforded to with labor dis putes preservation distinguishable historic issues re several spects. First, relationship those issues have no use of an individual’s (other they may own, picket) residence than their which of course any privacy the individual resident would not have waived interests. *27 analysis there are more fundamental. the fact that First, right be someone has a appellees other than the who similarly permitted be treated those is irrelevant validity to thе The question of constitutional case. this apparently a more import believes it has license to relaxed over- standing requirements of First Amendment into equal protection breadth challenges. This, however, not and supports should not be the law. Precedent no such approach and underlying expanded standing the rationale principles in the inapposite overbreadth context equal protection realm. Grayned,
As we stated in standing to an ordi- challenge constitutionally nance which has been applied plaintiff to the permitted because otherwise the if allowed stand statute, a until later challenge, privileged activity.” will “deter 114. In protection S., equal however, we context, are not concerned be permitted that conduct must under the First Amendment will be but prohibited, conduct which properly prohibited could be and is per- if indistinguishable mitted from permitted other conduct. The impact speech is therefore minimal while one, jurisprudential considerations for declining to consider alterna- applications tive loom large.
In Jackson, Barrows v. 346 U. S. (1953), equal protection the Court ordinary that, identified the rule case, though a party “even will suffer injury direct substantial Second, theoretically alternative forums would parks include residеntial well as the office of responsible authorities the relevant decisions.
The Court’s citation of lawn decorations as a waiver of residential privacy seems odd voluntary since that act does not involve the admis- strangers sion of purposes into home for some nonresidential char- —a acteristic exceptions. shared each of the Ante, other at 469. political party Court’s meeting citation distinguishable is also since example does not share the exemp- commercial of the other attributes tions —where readily “nonresidential use” seems most found. An alterna- forum tive would also not seem difficult to obtain in those circumstances. application of a cannot its statute, challenge he consti- *28 tutionality can he unless he show that is within the class whose rights allegedly infringed.” constitutional justified rule, Court the stating:
“One for ruling reason the court, that state when actually narrowly faced with the con question, might strue the objectionable feature, obliterate might or it declare the unconstitutional provision separa ble. New York Reardon, ex Hatch v. rel. S.],U. [204 160-161. ... It would indeed be for this undesirable - every consider conceivable situation which might possibly application complex arise comprehensive legislation. ready Nor are we so tо frus trate expressed Congress will of or of the that state legislatures. Cf. Southern Gallagher, Co. v. Pacific 167, 172.” Id., S. at 256-257. recently More in Craig Boren, 193 (1976), emphasized we standing that “designed to minimize un warranted intervention into controversies where the appli cable constitutional questions are speculative.” ill-defined and Sound principles of standing simply do permit not this Court any entertain by claim appellees in this action that someone might other than themselves be equal pro denied by tection the operation of the statute. Young See also Inc., American Mini Theatres, 427 U. atS., 60; Broad 58-59, rick v. Oklahoma, 413 U. This consideration is particularly compelling in this case since appellees had an opportunity to seek a limiting construction of the statute by the Illinois courts when originally prosecuted for their picketing, plead but chose to guilty thereby denying instead, system one court that could authoritatively limit statute the opportunity to do so. if this
Even properly Court could take cognizance of the fact that some person identifiable clearly encompassed statutory categories permitting picketing should also fact that standards, protection equal under picket, allowed entire of the invalidation wholesale justify would not alone 53- Jobst, 434 U. S. In ano v. statutory frаmework. Calif protec equal sound emphasized this Court (1977), though such rules “even general uphold must analysis tion consequences arbitrary seemingly inevitably produce rules classi legislative “the broad cases,” some individual typical by reference judged must fication characteristics selected, focusing by rather than affected classes such of review, standard Any other examples.” atypical lead to inevitably will today, by the Court employed be able to always court will other any for this invalidation, accounted *29 properly not hypothetical conceive of oppor given if categories. The state statutory courts, This minor deficiencies. such to correct have the tools tunity, room far more legislatures state soundly permitted Court has than what the categories drafting of its for in the error 390 U. S. Ginsberg York, v. New allows. As it stated today legislatures do demand (1968), 642-643 “[w]e Bank Noble State ‘scientifically legislation,’ criteria certain rec we recently, And more Haskell, 110.” 219 U. government to local need to allow compelling ognized solutions to experiment with opportunity “a reasonable Mini Young American problems.” admittedly serious Theatres, 71. supra, at apt more words than with no this dissent
I conclude can concurring opinion his Frankfurter Justice those of Mr. for us 97: is not S., at Cooper, 336 U. “[I]t Kovacs v. safeguard- legislature may impose the limits the supervise serenity narrowing opportunities steadily ing reflection.”